Talk:The Rainard School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listing non-religions such as "No religious affiliation" in the religion entries of infoboxes[edit]

There have been several RfCs on whether to list non-religions such as "No religious affiliation" in the religion entries (religion, denomination, religious affilliaton, etc.) of infoboxes:

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of those apply. Obviously the RfC regarding individuals is a different matter with different considerations altogether. This should be self-evident on consideration. The Rainard School, in addtion to not being a person, is not a nation, so trying to drag those discussions into this not helpful, and I'd appreciate if you stopped doing that.
The only discussion that might apply is the 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes discussion. However, that was clearly about avoiding entries such as "Religious affiliation: Marxist" and "Religious affiliation: Atheist" and so forth. However, for an educational institution, where we do have an entry for religious affiliation, you need to be able to have a "none" option. I think it is safe to say that any other reference work would do this. The would do this because its common sense. Certainly few if any voices were raised in that discussion against this common and obviously functional practice.
What you need to do here, I think, is fill in the blank in this statement with something cogent that can get consensus: "If this school was affiliated with the Catholic Church (or whatever), we should put "Catholic" (or whatever) in the "Religious affiliation" field of the infobox. But if it's unaffiliated, we should make certain that the reader is not told this in the infobox. Not seeing this information is a help to the reader and better enables her to get a quick outline grasp on the subject, because ____________". What goes in the blank? You tell me. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already have consensus.[1] What part of "Without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox"[2] are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of answering the above question, Herostratus is now attempting to overturn two infobox RfCs, one from less than six months ago and another from a year ago.
Specifically, this new RfC asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the lack of religious affiliation adequately covered by Independent as value for the "Type" parameter? See in particular Independent school#United States, which would seem to cover this question for readers. There's nothing fundamentally irreligious about this school, anyway. I couldn't find any statement on the web site that they have no religion. I also see an article completely lacking WP:RS, so maybe that's a better way to occupy our time before it is dragged to AfD! Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Even if we did find a source establishing that this particular school has no religion, we still shouldn't put "religion = no religion" in the infobox, for the same reason that we don't add "hobby = non collecting stamps" in the infobox. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not collecting stamps is the lack of a hobby. No religion is not a religion. No religion is the lack of a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rainard_School&oldid=1218196288"